School Attendance Problems: A Research Update and Where to Go  

Malin Gren Landell (ed) Jerringfonden, 2021  

https://jerringfonden.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/202101-Jerringfonden-Antologi-A5-sammanslagen.pdf  

1. Early Detection and Risk Factors 

Covers power of school attendance data, building early detection systems to prevent chronic absenteeism, early identification of attendance problems, school-related risk factors  

1. Assessment  

Functional risk-profiles of moderate school attendance problems, school-refusal assessment: The school refusal evaluation scale  

1. Youth, Teachers, Parents 

Exploring the voices of young people in school absenteeism: What schools need to know, teacher role in absenteeism: Discrimination, identity and intersectionality, parents and school attendance 

1. Psychiatric and Psychological Interventions 

     School attendance problems from the perspective of child and adolescent psychiatry, 

     Psychological interventions for school refusal and truancy, Where to go from here? 

Problematic school absenteeism is associated with poor school performance, loneliness, mental health problems, antisocial problems and long-term outcomes like unemployment.  

Does this anthology add to our understanding of school attendance problems (SAP)? 

Amy Hidges, Reinie Cordier, Annette Joosten, Helen Bourke – Taylor, 2021

The authors designed a theoretical model detailing ASD characteristics, participation barriers, participation enablers and intervention techniques as shown below based on studies of relevant literature. The solid lines between the factors indicate that literature strongly supports the links between them, a dotted line indicates that there is only emerging evidence of links between them.

Social and cultural environmental factors influencing participation such as peer and teacher understanding of ASD, teacher knowledge and skills in supporting pupils with ASD etc have not been included in the model, however the authors note that these are also factors that can influence participation. To effect changes in the barriers to participation it is suggested that participation enablers are implemented through intervention strategies.

Following the literature review, surveys and focus groups an intervention programme was designed which included: (a) professional learning for teachers and school leadership staff (b) teacher-led whole class lesson plans (c) peer training for selected pupils (d) activity ideas to incorporate key whole school messages € weekly parent handouts for parents participating in the intervention. The intervention was entitled ‘In My Shoes’ and was aimed at improving the participation of primary school students between 8 and 10 years old. The intervention programme was designed to be delivered to all students, not just those with ASD, over 10 weeks, and focused on understanding strengths and differences, identifying behaviours that promote acceptance, inclusivity and a sense of feeling valued.

The next steps for the study were to evaluate the feasibility, fidelity and effectiveness of the programme, therefore no conclusions have been drawn around the impact of this intervention on promoting inclusion for pupils with ASD.

How well do we educate staff and pupils on understanding ASD and recognising the barriers to participation for pupils on the Autism spectrum?

Batten, A., Corbett, C., Rosenblatt, M., Withers, L., & Yuille, R. (2006). Make school make sense. Autism and education: The reality for families today. National Autistic Society.

Fletcher-Watson, S., Adams, J., Brook, K., Charman, T., Crane, L., Cusack, J., et al. (2018). Making the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation. Autism, 23(4), 943–953.

Hodges, A., Cordier, R., Joosten, A., & Bourke-Taylor, H. (2021). Expert consensus on the development of a school-based intervention to improve the school participation and connectedness of elementary students with ASD: A Delphi study. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities.

Carrie Ballantyne, Claire Wilson, Martin K Toye & Carrie Gillespie – Smith, 2022

Humphrey (2008) reported that autistic children are 20 times more likely to be excluded from school than those without additional support needs. Studies have also reported high levels of school absence in the ASD population.

Research suggests that teachers who have greater knowledge about ASD are more positive about inclusion.

Teacher self-efficacy is also highlighted as an important element of successful inclusion, teachers must believe that they have the ability to create effective learning environments for all learners.

Through the questionnaire 5 themes were identified as important to staff as being barriers to the successful inclusion of pupils with ASD. These were:

·       Limited training

·       Lack of support

·       Lack of knowledge about ASD

·       Difficulties in managing ASD

·       Parental involvement.

Staff from all groups surveyed did not believe they had appropriate knowledge of ASD. Across all staff groups participants reported a lack of training opportunities and felt under- supported to work effectively with children with autism.

The survey results suggest there is a need to focus on the efficacy beliefs of early years staff when supporting children with ASD. Staff responses suggested that they were keen to learn from colleagues with specific ASD training. This is highlighted as a low cost approach to improving efficacy in staff working in mainstream schools.

Early Years and Pupil Support staff scored higher in the knowledge domains than class teachers, with secondary teachers showing the lowest level of knowledge in the questionnaire domains. This suggests that behaviours linked to ASD are poorly understood by teachers, especially in the secondary environment where teachers typically spend much less time with individual pupils.

Participants in the study reported the need for more flexible and individualised approaches to teaching and learning to improve relationships and attainment.

4 themes were identified around the supports required for successful inclusion of pupils with ASD. These were:

·       Individualising educational experiences

·       Changes to learning spaces

·       Opportunities to learn about ASD

·       Communication

These themes link with further international research recommendations on improving inclusion and should be key considerations for staff when identifying and addressing barriers to inclusion for pupils with ASD.

How confident are our staff in their knowledge and understanding of how to support pupils with ASD in a mainstream setting?

How flexible are our learning environments and offers to meet the needs of pupils with ASD?

and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder at a Higher Risk?” Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 41: 31–38.

The MSS survey is administered to students across the state, with students and parents having the choice to ‘opt out’ if they desire. Students had the opportunity to skip questions within the survey. 10 questions from the survey were chosen to represent the prevalence of ACEs, 3 questions were chosen linked to the identified education outcomes outlined above and 7 questions were used to measure school connectedness. The survey is used by the state as a planning tool to inform future resourcing.

Hardcastle et al suggest education may play a critical role in moderating the impact of adversity and addressing the associated inequalities. One factor related to improving education related outcomes is fostering an environment based on school connectedness. School connectedness is defined as ‘the belief held by students that adults and peers in school care about their learning as well as about them as an individual.’ (US Center for Disease Control and Prevention).

Survey results

·       5% of the respondents to the survey reported having >4 ACEs (females 6.4%, males 3.7%). Report of having >4 ACEs was associated with having more than 4 times the likelihood of having on of the 3 education-related outcomes which were measured.

·       Among males who reported sexual abuse or food insecurity there was strong association with responding that they had no plan to graduate.

·       Among males and females who reported sexual abuse there was a strong association with responding that they had cut school for more than 3 days in the past month.

·       Experience of any ACEs was associated with males being 1.5 times more likely to have below average grades.

·       Marginal effects were reduced by school connection. These effected differed between male and female students.

The study did not conclude that school connection can improve on the impact of ACEs and education –related outcomes, however the author does suggest that there would be scope to explore these relationships further with younger students within the 6^th – 8^th grades. The author concludes that while the results of the study did not show a link between school connectedness and mitigating the impact of ACEs that school contextual factors may still promote youth wellbeing, a sense of belonging and resilience to challenge adversity.

Are staff aware of pupils within their setting who have >3 ACEs?

Do we have effective tools for screening pupils for ACEs and to gather data based on planning for future outcomes?

What knowledge do senior leadership teams and pastoral care staff have on school connectedness?

What role do EP colleagues have to play in gathering data on ACEs and future education outcomes?

experiences and educational and employment success in England and Wales: findings from a retrospective study. Public Health. 2018;165:106-116.

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School connectedness: strategies for increasing protective factors among youth.

(PDF) Assessing Reasons for School Non-attendance (researchgate.net)

This study used a self-report questionnaire for students recruited from schools in seven municipalities in Norway. The municipalities included a relative large Norwegian city, towns, and rural districts. The survey was conducted at the end of the autumn term in 2012. A total of 5,465 students from the sixth to the tenth grades from 45 schools participated (ages 11–15; 51% males and 49% females). The response rate was 84%.

This study recommends that school refusal and truancy should be treated as two separate dimensions, despite other studies noting considerable overlap and recommending an integrated approach, through use of the term ‘school refusal behaviours’ (Kearney et al.) Findings from this study show that school refusal and truancy constitute different reasons and risk factors for school non-attendance, which may require different interventions.

The report highlights that school refusal is more likely during key transition periods (e.g. primary to secondary).

The study found that subjective health complaints was the most prevalent reason for school non-attendance in primary and secondary school, with 1 in 5 students reporting that as their reason for absence. More attention should be given to this type of non-attendance because it may often reflect unnecessary non-attendance that could negatively affect learning results and because it could contribute to undesirable attitudes concerning non-attendance that could carry over into work life.

The study also highlights how parents’ attitudes towards sickness-related absences are transmitted to their children (Josephson et al. 2013) and therefore suggest that parents should be actively involved in interventions to prevent and improve school non-attendance.

Truancy-related reasons were the most prevalent reasons recorded by pupils with special educational needs. This result may indicate the need to make special education a primary predictor of truancy. The report suggests that feelings of failure could push such pupils towards truancy.

Students who report somatic and subjective health complaints as reasons for legitimate non-attendance, can be indicative of later illegitimate non-attendance, which could incur serious long-term consequences. Early robust monitoring and investigation of somatic and subjective health complaints is therefore important in preventing later refusal and truancy.

Furthermore, a concern raised in the report is that the risk of refusal or truancy is increased when subjective heath complaints are accepted by schools as a reason for legitimate non-attendance, as this makes illegitimate non-attendance seem acceptable and, also, makes it more difficult for teachers to identify these pupils, delaying the response of necessary early intervention. Having good routines for recording non-attendance and its causes and creating individual follow-up plans for students who do not attend school could be effective measures for reducing illegitimate non-attendance.

Can we use the featured measurement model to assess reasons for school non-attendance to implement appropriate interventions?

Should the attendance of children with specific learning difficulties and special educational needs be closely monitored to avoid potential illegitimate school non-attendance?

The driving question for this functional model: Why does my child not want to go to school?.   

Academic disagreement if we should differentiate over reasons for absenteeism – leave with parental consent, with social anxiety and those who truant. Recommend using the term ‘school refusal’.  

School refusal may be linked to diverse mental health disorders – separation anxiety disorder (SAD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), schooling-related events (ridiculed, criticised in front of others, sent to HT) or depression 

4 main reasons that justify school refusal (Kearney & Spear 2014): 

1. Avoiding negative affect provoked by school stimuli (negatively reinforced) -avoid school because when you do you feel sad/depressed? Do you have negative feelings towards school thinking about it at the weekends? 

1. Escaping social aversion situations (negatively reinforced) – if easier to make new friends, would it be easier to go to school? How often do you avoid people from school, compared to others your age? 

1. Seeking significant others’ attention (positively reinforced) – would you prefer if your parents went to school with you?  Would you prefer being taught by parents at home than teachers in school? 

1. Seeking tangible reinforcements outside of school setting. (positively reinforced) – how often refuse to go as want to have fun outside of school? Prefer to do things out of school than most boys & girls your age? 

PISA – student attitude towards educational centre. (PISA – student satisfaction) 

School refusal for children –  SAD, GAD, school phobia. Adolescents – also related to depression 

Defined terminology: 

School anxiety or stress is defined as a set of unpleasant physical and cognitive symptoms that appear as a response to global and specific school stressors.  

School phobia – specific situation (educational institution) phobia  

School truancy – repeated unjustified absence (not based on anxiety or with parental consent)  

Absenteeism was more prevalent in areas of deprivation.  

Complexity of issues – requires partnership interventions – students, parents, teachers, specialists need to participate in the intervention with the same aim of achieving schooling for all students in the shortest time possible.  

Many interventions based on CBT – gradual exposure, and contingency management. In vivo exposure, social skills training, therapeutic contract, coping skills.  

Identify main factors of school refusal: 1) sociodemographic variable, 2) anxiety, 3) depression, 4) academic factors & 5) family factors. 

Suggest further exploration of digital in supporting school refusers to access learning.  

Recommends the design of a new assessment instrument and an intervention programme.  

Looking at 3-5 year olds to catch any absenteeism early and prevent habitual patterns being created.  

How could/does digital support school refusers? 

Have the scales with specific measures to assess school refusal behaviour been updated or is there a prevalent one used in Scotland? (SRAS-R-C(main international one) , FSA, SAS, SRPE) p40 

PISA student satisfaction data.  

A Multidimensional, Multi-tiered System of Supports Model to Promote School Attendance and Address School Absenteeism | SpringerLink 

Tier 1

Tier 2 interventions are designed to target emerging individual cases of school absenteeism, or those of mild/moderate absence severity. These include interventions designs to improve family functioning, including psychological therapy approaches linked to emotional distress, student engagement approaches and teacher/peer/other person-based mentoring programmes.  

 Tier 3 interventions include those designed to address individual cases of chronic and severe absence, through a multi-agency approach. Such interventions include expanded Tier 2 therapies, alternative education programmes and family involvement strategies. Kearney et al. recommend the introduction of a Tier 4 to include very intensive interventions for youth with psychopathology, which may involve a blend between education and inpatient/residential facilities.  

Domain cluster 1 – The paper defines and explains different types of absenteeism;  

School refusal – reluctance to attend due to emotional distress, child-initiated 

Truancy – related to behaviour, illegal absenteeism, child-initiated  

School withdrawal – parent-initiated, often withdrawn for economic/caregiving purposes  

School exclusion – disciplinary reasons, school-initiated  

Common interventions mainly include cognitive-behavioural-oriented practices, which address internalising and externalising behaviour problems, and family interventions such as parenting skills training and family therapy.  

Domain cluster 2 – functional profiles and analysis (what are the motivating factors of a child’s absenteeism?)  

As outlined in the report, a common functional profile is based on the motivating conditions of child’s absenteeism. An example of this was developed by Kearney et al. who referred to the following aspects;  

1. Avoid school-based stimuli that provoke a general sense of negativity or anxiousness  

1. Escape aversive social and/or evaluative situations at school  

1. Seek attention from significant others  

1. Pursue tangible rewards outside school  

The report recommends that these factors should be considered at each tier to adopt preventative, targeted and nuanced interventions and provides research-backed examples of these.  

Other domain cluster options:  

Domain cluster 3 – preschool, elementary, middle and high school  

Domain cluster 4 – ecological levels of impact on school attendance and its problems 

Domain cluster 5 – low/ moderate/ high absenteeism severity 

Do we value universal interventions enough as a preventative measure to avoid or reduce the risk of school attendance problems arising?  

Kearney, C. A. (2018). Helping school refusing children and their parents: A guide for school-based professionals (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.